Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28603776›Full record

ReviewTrends in cancer2016

Actionable molecular biomarkers in primary brain tumors.

Verena Staedtke, Omar Dildar a Dzaye, Matthias Holdhoff

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The potential role ofBioscience reports · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Unleashing the Mystery of a Treated Case of Medulloblastoma.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Imaging diagnosis and treatment selection for brain tumors in the era of molecular therapeutics.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Verena Staedtke *Brain Cancer Program, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD.
Omar Dildar a Dzaye *Brain Cancer Program, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD.
Matthias Holdhoff *Brain Cancer Program, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD.

Funding

Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Rosalie Wollett · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent genome-wide studies of malignancies of the central nervous system (CNS) have revolutionized our understanding of the biology of these tumors. This newly gained knowledge provides a wealth of opportunity for biomarker driven clinical research. To date, however, only few of the available molecular markers truly influence clinical decision-making and treatment. The most widely validated markers in neuro-oncology presently are: 1)

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBrain NeoplasmsGenetic HeterogeneityHumansBiomarkers, TumorBiomarkerBRAF mutationco-deletion of 1p/19qglioblastomagliomaIDH mutationmedulloblastomaMGMT promoter methylation

Identifiers

PMID28603776
PMCPMC5461965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.